Server-Side Rendering vs. Client-Side Rendering: A Guide for Web Development

shows that 53% of mobile website visits are abandoned if pages take more than three seconds to load, highlighting how critical fast rendering is to maintaining user interest.

To ensure optimal performance, developers often use SSR, CSR, or a hybrid approach known as universal/isomorphic rendering (we'll talk about this a little later). Each method has its pros and cons regarding SEO optimization, initial loading time, speed of interactivity, scalability and maintainability, among other factors.

SSR provides an immediate preview of the web page because it sends fully populated HTML files from the server to the browser, but it can compromise page interactivity until all JavaScript is fully loaded. On the other hand, CSR offers faster interaction speeds once loaded since JavaScript runs directly in the client's browser, but suffers from slower initial load times due to empty HTML sent while waiting for JavaScript to execute.

Incorporating modern technologies like progressive web apps (PWAs) can help optimize SSR and CSR approaches, enabling websites to function more like native apps, offering offline functionality and improving the overall user experience (UX) regardless of network conditions, thus ensuring customer retention even in adverse situations.

But enough users – let's talk about rendering.

What is RSS?

Basically, SSR involves generating server-rendered html on the server before it is sent to the client – ​​the end user's browser. This server-side rendering process happens whenever there is a page request made by an end user. In essence, when someone types or clicks your website URL on their device, each requested web page is already a fully rendered HTML page, prepared on elite servers spread across different regions of the world.

Contrary to the perception that such an approach can be resource-intensive, server-side rendering frameworks are designed to simplify the actions performed by clients while leveraging the processing resources of servers efficiently. This minimizes frequent server requests, which can be costly, especially on a slow Internet connection.

A key advantage derived from RSS lies in its First Meaningful Paint (FMP) timings – a performance metric that refers to how quickly critical source content appears to users when loading an HTML file. With pre-rendered pages being delivered immediately, users are immediately absorbed by the user interface, thus mitigating the chances of sudden bounces due to perceived delays – which is of paramount importance for high-traffic platforms seeking increased metrics over customer retention and engagement rates.

But wait, there's more! One of the biggest headaches for web developers with CSR is that because the home page is almost basic, search engine bots like those used by Google sometimes fail to capture web page content, which, as you could wait, it's a death sentence for SEO. In fact, this is the reason why SSR, an open source framework, has grown in popularity – it has finally solved one of SPAs' biggest headaches.

At first glance, servers may not seem like the most glamorous component of your digital ecosystem – an invisible force humming behind the scenes while developers bask in the spotlight playing with CSS animations or experimenting with AR/VR applications.

However, imagine having an expertly choreographed ballet performance without any musical accompaniment – ​​the nuance and depth will be markedly diminished. This is precisely the void that a mediocre approach to understanding servers would create in your business model.

SSR operates as an orchestra conductor responsible for managing symphonies at the request of visitors, batons on our websites. These pieces of code help paint browser screens with rendering solutions processed server-side long before they reach users' devices. Think about completing puzzle pieces in advance so end users spend less time waiting.

The SSR solution interprets all requests made by browsers over an HTTP protocol network and delivers finished HTML pages directly to the user. This eliminates the need to parse the client-side JavaScript library and the complicated work of processing the server-side JavaScript. Since we no longer rely on client-side javascript, we have much more control over our website or application, but this obviously comes at a cost.

Serving a few hundred users is no problem for a small server, but what if you are serving millions of users? Remember that some of the biggest sites get hundreds of millions of users a day – suddenly all these requests are asking our servers “Hey, please create a view”. If just requesting information is enough to take down a website, having to render the page for millions of users is a difficult task.

Behind the Scenes: The Mechanics of Client-Side Rendering

CSR has emerged as a highly effective strategy for web developers, primarily due to its ability to provide interactive and streamlined user experiences.

The first step to understanding CSR is recognizing that all key actions occur within your browser. Unlike server-side processes, where calculations occur on powerful servers before delivering static HTML to browsers, CSR leverages an open-source JavaScript framework to power these engines: Chrome's V8 or Firefox's Spidermonkey, for example .

Yes, client-side rendered websites have a relatively higher initial loading cost than their server-rendered counterparts because they need to download more assets, including a single JavaScript file, rather than just single-page documents. But remember this only happens once; As information is cached on the user's hardware, subsequent navigation becomes smoother and faster, providing a seamless browsing experience — exactly what today's impatient user demands!

Traditionally with CSR, data fetching occurs through APIs after initial JavaScript downloads, allowing for asynchronous data loading and updating portions independently rather than reloading entire pages, a significant improvement over the previous way. old way of doing things. And to help improve web content sharing across the web, developers can also implement Facebook's Open Graph Protocol for better representation across social media platforms (hey, Django and WordPress, I'm looking at you).

As we mentioned before, it could be argued that SEO issues were a weak point for CSRs because search engines had difficulty interpreting JavaScript code effectively. However, with advancements and the integration of reusable UI components, this has improved somewhat. Googlebot, for example, is now able to “read” JavaScript dependent types. It's not a perfect solution by any metric – the more creative you are with your JavaScript, the more likely you are to condemn your site to SEO hell. But it's much better than it was a few years ago.

Given their heavy dependence on local resources (i.e. users' browsers), the advanced interactivity capabilities make CSRs ideal for web applications that require constant interactions, such as real-time updates or animations, typical scenarios including SPAs, post-first render analysis, and -commerce platforms with many product detail options, etc.

Pros and cons of server-side rendering

When it comes to a web development company, choosing between SSR and CSR can often feel like navigating a maze. However, we will try to delve into the intricacies of both approaches and see if we can help you figure out which one suits you best.

Accessibility to search engines – an advantage over CSR

One undeniable advantage that SSR has over its counterpart is its excellent accessibility to search engine crawlers. This means that Googlebot or Bingbot can quickly index your content as search engines receive a fully rendered page from the server. So if you want excellent SEO performance, SSR can convincingly tick that box.

Protected User Experience – Catering First Contentful Paint

Users today are notoriously impatient when it comes to slow websites; they want your information right there. With SSR in action, the user will not be left staring at a blank screen until all scripts are loaded – a common pitfall in CSR – as servers send HTML ready for display, instantly achieving what is known as “ the first painting with content” faster.

An economical option for users

Think about end users with low-end devices or those who struggle with inferior Internet connectivity. By separating heavy operations into readily renderable server-side components, rather than outsourcing them entirely to client machines as CSR does, we ensure a fair user experience regardless of device capabilities without breaking your banks of data!

The other side…

As virtuous as these advantages may seem, no technology is perfect – and neither is SSR – therefore, it points out some disadvantages worthy of consideration along with its positive points:

Server load concerns – a potential pressure on performance?

In terms of operational architecture – specifically in terms of load – SSRs place extra pressure on servers and can have a profound impact on loading speeds and costs. Cloud-based services can dynamically scale to handle the problem, but this in turn means you need to be very careful with your cost structure.

Dealing with frequent updates

Sites that require continuous dynamic updates can face challenges in an SSR environment because each new interaction requires new HTML obtained from the server. Reloading pages will make real-time interactivity difficult, something that is crucial on sites like live auction portals or fantasy sports gaming apps.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Evaluating Client-Side Rendering

To start, let's reveal some aspects that make client-side rendering so attractive.

Dynamic Interaction

A key aspect of CSR is its ability for more dynamic user interaction compared to server-rendered applications. Because event-based actions are processed faster in the user's browser than round trips to the server, visitors enjoy an incredibly seamless and fluid browsing experience.

Reduced server load

By offloading computing tasks to customer devices rather than just servers, this results in lower server load, which could potentially lower operational costs associated with maintaining high-performance servers.

Scalability considerations

Due to the reduced dependence on servers for page rendering due to shifting calculations directly in client browsers, scalability complexities, especially during peak visitation periods, can be mitigated over time, thus providing cost-saving opportunities and improving the robustness of the website.

The other side…

SEO complications

Not all search engine crawlers are accustomed to, or sufficiently adapted to, indexing sites implemented around complex JavaScript frameworks widely used in client-side rendering architectures; This can compromise the visibility of the web page, leading to low organic discovery rates.

Performance caveats

While conversations about loading speeds often focus on how quickly static elements appear (which in fact tends to be faster due to light initial server responses), when we take into account other factors such as the total time needed before of rendering a fully interactivity-enabled web page – the picture is not so pretty. Thanks to a greater dependence on network conditions and user computing resources, post-initial load content updates can actually become a sore point for users.

Security and Vulnerability

Unfortunately, having the customer manage so many things can be a cybersecurity risk. To be fair, this isn't really an issue you should worry about if your developers have a good understanding of cybersecurity practices. But keep in mind that mistakes happen and that sometimes the library we use in our projects may share more data than we intended. In these cases, the information is there for anyone to see.

What's this about isomorphic JavaScript?

SSR with Isomorphic Javascript or universal rendering is a technique that combines the best of two worlds: the speed of SSR and the interactivity of RSE.

With universal rendering, the page is first rendered on the server, and then a small JavaScript file is sent to the browser to finish rendering the page. This provides the speed of SSR, because the browser doesn't have to do any work to render the home page, and the interactivity of CSR, because the browser can refresh the page without having to reload the entire page.

Benefits of Universal Rendering:

• Faster initial load times: The page is rendered on the server before being sent to the browser, so it can load instantly.
• Better SEO: SSR pages are more easily indexed by search engines, which can help improve your site's search ranking.
• More interactivity: The browser can refresh the page without having to reload the entire page, which can improve the user experience.
• More flexibility: You can use any JavaScript framework to render the page, both on the server and in the browser.

Disadvantages of universal rendering:

• More complex to implement: Universal rendering is more complex to implement than SSR or CSR.
• May be slower for subsequent page loads: After the initial page loads, subsequent page loads will be slower than with CSR because the browser will have to download the JavaScript file from the server.

Overall, universal rendering is a good choice for sites that need to be fast and SEO-friendly. If you're willing to go the extra mile to implement it, universal rendering can give you the best of both worlds.

Here are some examples of sites that use universal rendering:

• Google Search: Google Search uses universal rendering to ensure the search results page loads quickly for users with slow internet connections.
• Twitter: Twitter uses universal rendering to ensure tweets load instantly for users.
• Medium: Medium uses universal rendering to provide a smooth and interactive reading experience.

If you're thinking about using universal rendering on your website, there are a few things you need to keep in mind:

• Make sure your server is fast enough: The server needs to be able to render the page quickly so that it can load instantly for users.
• Use a good JavaScript framework: The JavaScript framework you use should be well optimized for performance.
• Test your site thoroughly: Make sure your site works correctly with universal rendering before deploying it to production.

Examples of frameworks for universal rendering

While any framework can potentially be used by a developer to create a universally rendering page, we have seen a rise in extremely powerful and user-friendly frameworks that are changing the landscape of web development.

React.JS: a pioneer in component-based architecture

React.js has reshaped the modern web development landscape with its component-centric philosophy. Additionally, server-side rendering in React improves application performance and SEO. Designed to build rich user interfaces, it features a virtual DOM that ensures efficient updates and rendering.

This framework's focus on reusable components streamlines code and speeds up development. React's widespread adoption by tech giants and startups highlights its importance in technology discussions.

Next.JS: Robustness combined with versatility

Next.js is what a framework should strive to be: it's flexible, well-documented, and offers a multitude of approaches to deploying our web pages.

Next.js stands out due to its automatic code splitting feature – resulting in faster page loads – which directly and positively impacts user engagement rates – a critical metric often discussed during board meetings!

Svelte: future-proof approach

Svelte takes a future-ready approach to building responsive web applications. It compiles your code into small standalone JavaScript modules at build time rather than interpreting it at run time, providing significant speed advantages crucial to staying competitive in today's fast-paced market landscape.

Fresh: Deno's answer

For those who are ready to leave NodeJS behind, Deno is a powerful runtime created by the same developer as NodeJS, and Fresh is their answer to modern JavaScript web frameworks, with a minimalist approach and built for Typescript. Fresh may be a newcomer, but he has the potential to grow and conquer the world.

I would love to give a definitive statement on which approach you should take. But the reality of JavaScript development services is that there is no one-size-fits-all answer. Each project represents its own unique set of requirements. Therefore, our most valuable advice is to deliberate carefully, informed by what we have discussed so far. Which solution best aligns with you, your project and your team? No matter your choice, rest assured that a multitude of tools and solutions are available to bolster your development journey.

If you liked this, be sure to check out our other articles on web development.

• Scalable Architecture Development
• Software spring cleaning
• The best chatbots for websites
• The 7 Most Popular Web Development Tools Used by Professionals
• 5 cool tricks to speed up your page loading time